I just got an email purporting to be from The White House itself. The return address even ends in "whitehouse.gov." The text of the email is as follows:

Quote:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for taking the time to write. I have heard from many Americans regarding firearms policy and gun violence in our Nation, and I appreciate your perspective. From Aurora to Newtown to the streets of Chicago, we have seen the devastating effects gun violence has on our American family. I join countless others in grieving for all those whose lives have been taken too soon by gun violence.

Like the majority of Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation. Hunting and sport shooting are part of our national heritage. Yet, even as we acknowledge that almost all gun owners in America are responsible, when we look at the devastation caused by gun violence—whether in high-profile tragedies or the daily heartbreak that plagues our cities—we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.

While reducing gun violence is a complicated challenge, protecting our children from harm should not be a divisive one. Most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Most also agree that if we took commonsense steps to curtail gun violence, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown. We will not be able to stop every violent act, but if there is even one thing we can do to reduce gun violence—if even one life can be saved—then we have an obligation to try.

That is why I asked Vice President Joe Biden to identify concrete steps we can take to keep our children safe, help prevent mass shootings, and reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. He met with over 200 groups representing a broad cross-section of Americans and heard their best ideas. I have put forward a specific set of proposals based off of his efforts, and in the days ahead, I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality.

My plan gives law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, and the public health community some of the tools they need to help reduce gun violence. These tools include strengthening the background check system, helping schools hire more resource officers and counselors and develop emergency preparedness plans, and ensuring mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence. And I directed the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence—because it is critical that we understand the science behind this public health crisis.

As important as these steps are, they are not a substitute for action from Congress. To make a real and lasting difference, members of Congress must also act. As part of my comprehensive plan, I have called on them to pass some specific proposals right away. First, it is time to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. Second, Congress should renew the 10-round limit on magazines and reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban. We should get tougher on those who buy guns with the purpose of selling them to criminals, and we should impose serious punishments on anyone who helps them do this.

These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people. But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love. We owe the victims of heartbreaking national tragedies and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best effort—to seek consensus in order to save lives and ensure a brighter future for our children.

Did you ever participate in that Ruger thing where they sent emails on your behalf to representitives? I believe that sent an email to the White House. If not, well, it looks like the White House has hacked the Matrix, and we're all doomed!

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Popvox allows me to put a widget on my site that presents a bill and allows users to fill out the form and send it right then. I figure that's why I've gotten numerous odd responses, including the one you did.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

I think the most disturbing thing about the email is the fact that I have never in my life emailed The White House

"We've taken care of everything—the words you read and the songs you sing. ... Never need to wonder how or why" Rush 2112

__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers.

Because they failed to force it upon us, they're asking for our help. This whole issue went from an unavoidable, foregone conclusion in January to "it deserves a vote" in February to "we really need your help" in March.

That's not an utterance of someone who's not as in control of an issue as he'd once assumed.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

These are reasonable, commonsense measures that have the support of the majority of the American people. But change will not come unless the American people demand it from their lawmakers.

On the one hand, he says that these measures "have the support of the majority of the American people," but in the same breath says that lawmakers won't make the changes "unless the American people demand it." Well, which is it? Is he telling us that lawmakers are refusing to enact laws supported by the majority of Americans? Or that lawmakers don't think the measures are supported by a majority?

__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

On the one hand, he says that these measures "have the support of the majority of the American people,"

I'm very leery of these polls that express majority support for gun control. It's too easy to push people and too easy to manipulate general responses into support for specific laws. One can imagine a question like:

Would you favor reasonable gun control measures to reduce grade school massacres?

On the one hand, he says that these measures "have the support of the majority of the American people," but in the same breath says that lawmakers won't make the changes "unless the American people demand it." Well, which is it? Is he telling us that lawmakers are refusing to enact laws supported by the majority of Americans? Or that lawmakers don't think the measures are supported by a majority?

They're talking out of both sides of their mouths in an effort to get SOME kind of victory out of this. There's a reason the President was telling us last week to "remember how we felt" at the news of Sandy Hook. That reason is that he realizes they've lost the battle for ideas and understand they have to rely on the motivation given by emotion. They just don't have any other lever to use on the American people, and in most cases, it just isn't enough.*

They just don't have any other lever to use on the American people, and in most cases, it just isn't enough.*

*Void in NY, CO, and CT. And maybe even CA.

There isn't any question about CA. 10/22 Rimfires will soon be reclassified as Assault Weapons here. It seems CA polititians want to ensure hat "THEY" have the toughest gun laws in the nation. It's a race don't ya know?

That's exactly what it is for them. January's a tough month to get legislation on the table. Now the emotional appeals are having less effect and it's harder to seize on the moment. Goshdarnit, folks have had time to think about this, and they're not as supportive as they might have been.

Let's not forget the sheer arrogance with which they addressed the gun culture at the beginning of the year. We need to show that to voters in 2014 to hammer the point home.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

I'm very leery of these polls that express majority support for gun control. It's too easy to push people and too easy to manipulate general responses into support for specific laws.

The sudden attack on Ohio with the barrage of commercials sponsored by the likes of Bloomberg chanting mandatory gun registration to save our children is surely proof of the above statement by KyJim.

One of the adds claimed that 83% of Ohioans are for these new proposals.

Think I'll go out on a limb and call BS on that figure. And further go out on a limb and say that the 83% figure is a blatant lie to the public with the intent of nothing more then to try and sway the unknowing.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM.
Reason: invective.

The problem gun supporters face, always has been that when you try to stay with factual arguments and logical thought, but you are up against emotional people who regularly utilize unconstrained exaggeration, misrepresentation and outright lying as the basis for their position, you can't win unless the 3rd party listener is able to discern the truth from the lies. The masses are apparently grossly incapable of same. An old friend used to say even the first liar doesn't stand a chance.

And the anti's don't care how unconstitutional some of these new sweeping ban laws turn out to be. Get enough of them on the books, and they will have to be challenged one at a time, picked apart with limited decisions as it always happens, and in one six month blitz they could give us decades of undoing and expense just to return to where we were on January 1, 2013.

__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

I am not really sure how well my analogy applies but i have often wondered if they were worried about the sheep, wouldn't you allow more sheep dogs to get bigger teeth to protect the sheep from the wolves, rather than passing a new muzzle law that affect the sheepdogs to stop the wolves from feeding on the sheep?

__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario!

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.